I'm not sure if this (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9507677/) is the tip of a surfacing iceberg or the end result of the inquiry. This comes on the heels of indictments against his state political organization. DeLay has, by necessity, stepped aside as House Majority Leader. Speaker Hastert will recommend David Dreier, R-Calif. to take over the duties.

While this is particular to Texas, additional future charges wouldn't surprise me as investigations into Jack Abramoff continue to heat up (the latest: one of his business partner's paid a large sum to two guys who cops say whacked a former Abramoff business partner, Gus Boulis). Abramoff had his fingers in a lot of pies, so it could get interesting.

Now to see if the insider trading investigation against Senate Majority Leader Frist goes anywhere.

Insider trading?
Isnt that the same thing that Martha Stewart went to jail for?
I wonder if the good ole boys club will keep him out of trouble.
It will be interesting.

In Ll's thread on "this will leave a mark" the link provided also had some other articles of interest, one of which was the manner in which the prosecutor is being accused of going after Delay because he is Republican, and that the fact he has 12 Democrat to 3 Republican prosecutions is being ignored.

Gingrich did one heckuva job leading the Republican party back into a position of power on the national level, by connecting with the people and reiterating the principles of the party. Unfortunately, politicians being what they are (for the most part) power tends to corrupt, and the same spending issues that they accused the Democrats of were now the domain of the Republicans.....but, with less tax money to pay for them, due to the tax cuts, the deficit that had been so effectively minimized now once again is an albatross for our children's children to be saddled with, and the arrogance that comes with power has led some (read Delay) to engage in practices that are outside the law, and they are now paying for it with the public scrutiny and potential disgrace.

It matters not who is in power, the same behaviors will manifest themselves, and the same headlines will occur over and over, with only the players names changed. As the prosecutor in Texas has said, Delay is being indicted because of the laws in Texas that he violated, not because of party affiliation.

Personally, I do not like the man based on his efforts to change the rules to suit his party and offer protection from the same special prosecutor rules that were used in the attempt to destroy Clinton. I look forward to Delay getting his comeuppance for thinking he was above the law.

And I think Frist has pretty much ended his presidential hopes.

The iceberg surfaces some more. Second indictment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100300190.html):

AUSTIN, Texas -- A Texas grand jury indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering Monday, less than a week after another grand jury leveled a conspiracy charge that forced DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader.

Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through a political action committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington.

The RNC then sent back like amounts to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges.
The new indictment came hours after DeLay's attorneys filed a request to dismiss the case. That request argued that the conspiracy charge was based on a law that was not effective until 2003, the year after the alleged money transfers.

The judge who will preside in DeLay's case was out of the country on vacation and could not rule on the request. Other state district judges declined to rule on the request in his place, said Colleen Davis, a law clerk to Austin attorney Bill White, also represents DeLay.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again.

This is no different than when the Dems are in power...

Hell, Fire up Cold Case and get Ted Kennedy ya fargn hypocrits.

Oh wait....that's different...

btw, no fan of Delay...but he's doing nothing but "business as usual"

Well, in recent history it's been proven you can blatantly lie to the judge under oath....Delay can use that as a prescedent (SP).

Better yet, imho, you want this fixed? Get rid of ANY and ALL special interest groups....make the politicians always deal publically...

Fandros

Actaully DeLay is straight up corrupt and wrong regardless of what party is in power. The death penalty should be reserved for people like him, that unabashedly corrupt the public trust they serve on all levels.

Perhaps he's corrupt. But the judge that was sitting this was heavily embroiled in democratic causes/funds himself. He's been removed from the case.

Pot/kettle/black

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174129,00.html

It's up on other websites for those of you focused on the foxnews aspect.

Fandros

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=news&start=0&num=3&q=http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/01/delay.indictment.ap/

another link for ya. Hell, the judge was a contributor of Moveon.org....hardly impartial and rightly removed.

Fandros

Last night I stained the living room carpet when I spit up some wine upon hearing the following joke on one of the talk shows (Conan, maybe):

'When Tom Delay goes to jail in Texas, they are going to give him the nickname "Pickup"........cuz his backend will always be full of Mexicans.'


Tacky, yes, and my apologies to any folks of Mexican heritage who are offended. But damn, that sure caught me off guard last night, and I was laughing the whole time I was cleaning up the carpet.

So if the next judge in the draw gave to Republican causes, will DeLay cry foul? I doubt it, but this seems to set a precedent that any politician going to court can protest a judge belonging to the opposing political party (and, therefore, the prosecutor could protest a judge belonging to the same party, assuming prosecutors can do that sort of thing). Not sure this is a good precedent.

"Not sure this is a good precedent" is bull shit.

I'm sure you'd stand there and take this obvious misuse of power up the ass huh?

All federal cases will now be tried by Libertarian and Green party judges.

Give me a Libertarian judge please! Not too sure about the Greenie though, unless I was arrested for protesting Haliburton. Yeah

Where is this misuse of power that the judge has committed, akipt?

Did I say anything about the judge? Other than his obvious lack of mental faculties from his donation records, I'm sure he's an outstanding judge and a model of civic duty for anyone to look up to... More than enough qualified to sit on the bench of any traffic court.

I don't think it's really a precedent so much as clearing the air tho Thor.

Having direct ties to Moveon.org isn't really placing himself at an objective viewpoint imho.

Delay should be put through the wringer, as should any politician in the future who plays hob with the truth.

For that matter any future events such as Clinton absolutely flippin lying , and admitting it later after the fact, should as well.

Fandros

What do you think of the precedent this suggests?

Errr that we want judges to stay out of politics and dedicate themselves to be objective?

Or at the very least, appear to be so. Giving open support to moveon.org and it's extremist views is hardly objective.

Especially inlight of the fact they have had Delay in their sights for awhile eh?

Fandros

Isn't asking an elected judge to "stay out of politics" a little unreasonable? Also, barring clear conflict of interest cases, isn't there an assumption of objectivity on the part of judges? Can't an individual be objective despite political leanings? Should we assume they cannot? How many restrictions should we apply to judges along the lines you suggest? Should they be banned from making donations to political organizations or individuals? Banned from joining a party? If the next judge donated to a Republican cause, should he go as well?

Yeah, but the same could be said about a church-going judge who is ruling on an abortion case. Some people aren't going to have a problem with it at all, others would be up in arms - it's the type of thing that is rarely cut and dry. Determining objectivity is difficult, if not impossible. I believe that's the sort of thing Thormir is referring to.

This is a criminal case so judges are even more attuned to avoid any appearances of impropriety.

Picture a similar situation with a black defendant whose judge belonged publicly to the KKK? Would the defendant have grounds to object? Here you have a judge that contributed/belonged to an extremist organization antithetical to the group the defendant belonged to. This is not new and certainly not dangerous precedent.

This is bad, but it's okay to appoint judges to the supreme court with the purpose of overturning roe v wade? you can't have it one way and not the other. It's ok to appoint judges based upon whether they have been in your inner circle? Now, I'm well aware this has been going on forever, but you can't hope to absolve judges from any political affiliation. Judges are supposed to be unbiased, Period. That's not very realistic to say that, but it's supposed to be the case. Judges being appointed because it's thought they will vote one way or another on upcoming cases shouldn't be allowed whether it's in the DeLay case, or in the case of supreme court nominations.

I'm not going to say one party or the other is any better about this, both sides try to twist the courts and it's asinine for either side to point the finger when their own side is just as guilty about this.

The KKK is hardly comparable to Moveon. The former is a fringe group with a historical propensity for violence against those it holds in ill regard. The latter is one of dozens, or hundreds of activist groups present on all sides of the American political spectrum. Who decides which of these groups is "extremist?" Would DeLay's defense have made this motion if the only contribution by the judge had gone to Kerry? The centrist DLC?

It's all about propriety. If they wanted to indict Delay, it should have been done in a less politically biased way, period.

Had this been a Democrat standing before a judge who was a member of some GOP fund raising organization, I wouldn't have a problem in seeing a new judge there, and neither would you.


Or would you still want to take it up the ass? Maybe Bubba will give you a reach around after you're convicted.

Horrendous precedent and especially ironic given what DeLay was indicted over. We all know DeLay is guilty as sin, but I can't imagine even the most gullible and naive FOX viewer not seeing something a little fishy in the removal of a judge in the same blackballing style that DeLay has used to bludgeon members of his own party into line for years. The actual reason for this judge's removel isn't his campaign contributions, that's merely how they're getting to him. I more suspect that DeLay doesn't have his fingers in that pie, so to speak, and it hoping the next judge that comes up is more malleable. Of course, finding any kind of investigative reporting on the subject is going to be next to impossible.

If I were innocent of a crime, the best thing you could possibly do would be to put a judge with a minor bias against me on the bench, as that would remove any specter of positive bias in my favor.

/chuckle

Waters far too deep.

I'm with you Akipt, if the positions were reversed I'd have no problem removing the judge.

When they convict Delay, and I'm not sure he shouldn't be, I want the waters clear and the judgement to be viable.

Fandros

akipt, I realize deep thoughts take second stage behind sputtering invective for you (if they're to be found at all), but you might look at the actual point I'm raising rather than digging for reasons to go 7th grade on me after embarrassing yourself in the other thread.

If a judge can/should be removed due to opposing political affiliation, should a judge of like affiliation also be removed? On what basis do we decide the "extremity" of that affiliation? Does this kind of precedent put us in a position where politically independent judges need to be dug up to handle cases involving politicians? DeLay's specific case aside, these are worthwhile questions.

Attorneys for Tom Delay today filed suit against his high school for damages due to the irreparable harm suffered as a result of the grading bias reflected in the less than perfect grades given him by three separate teachers, all of whom can be proven to have dated known Democrats while in college.

LMAO...

Wonder if I could try that dodge. I had a High School Analytic Geometry teacher that absolutely hated me...and I was quiet back then! He must have been a Dem!!

Fandros

Maybe you just didn't approach him from the right angle?

ba-dum *ching*

Ouch...doubly funny!


Fandros

The problem is moveon is comparable to the KKK despite your attempts to assert otherwise. I assume from your answer, you wouldn't have a problem with a KKK judge being removed from a black defendant's criminal case. Who decides extremist? Obviously Judge C.W. Duncan did. That's what judges do.

What is Moveon's history of violence (not just some isolated incident or two) against, presumably, their political opponents? What is Moveon's history of intimidation against individuals? What is the local, cultural and offical support network that abets this violence and intimdation? What deterministic* class or classes does Moveon eschew?

A sampling of possible questions illustrating the difference between the two groups.
Who decides extremist? Obviously Judge C.W. Duncan did.
Hmm...wonder who Duncan donated to. But as I noted above, DeLay's case is just a convenient example for the questions I've provided.

*"deterministic" defined here as comprised due to inviolable and involuntary characteristics, such as racial background, gender, etc.

When they convict Delay, and I'm not sure he shouldn't be, I want the waters clear and the judgement to be viable.

Fandros

For this reason if for no other, replacing the judge makes sense. While it is not realistic to expect that judges do not participate in the political process, it is entirely realistic to expect that lawyers will attempt to use said participation to bolster their arguments of judicial bias. Having donated to a high-profile political group allows for issues unrelated to the prosecution of the indictments to become a part of the debate, which detracts from the focus on the alleged criminal behavior itself.

The issue does serve to highlight the growing distance between the two parties and the antagonistic manner with which they treat one another. It is a shame that our leaders in Washington can no longer be held up as role models, or elected office something to aspire to, but instead are used as examples to teach our children how not to act or treat others.